Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today, as we conclude legislative business for the month of April in Washington, D.C., it is appropriate that we mark an important milestone in Ukraine: On April 26th, 2011, we recognize the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. On this date in 1986, Reactor Four at the Soviet-designed Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in northern Ukraine exploded, releasing more than 100 tons of lethally radioactive material into the environment. The human cost of this disaster is staggering. It is unlikely we will ever know how many deaths can be directly attributed to the Chernobyl disaster, but the loss of life of even one life is truly a tragedy. Twenty-five years later, the consequences of the world's worst nuclear accident continue to plague Eastern Europe. Ukraine has been especially impacted. The World Health Organization estimates that over 6,000 people have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer from the radioactive materials in the atmosphere. The concrete and steel sarcophagus that encases the ruined Nuclear Reactor Four is deteriorating and in need of replacement. In addition, the loss of Chernobyl's generating capacity exacerbates an already difficult energy shortage in Ukraine, which depends heavily on energy imports, especially during harsh winters. We must be mindful that Chernobyl's legacy remains a heavy burden for the people of Ukraine. The fatally flawed nuclear technology that built Chernobyl resulted in lasting harm to Ukraine's people and the environment. The sole consolation is that we can yet hope to redress the damage. We must continue to support U.S. and international efforts to address the lingering health, social, and economic consequences from the disaster, including the permanent encasement of the damaged nuclear Reactor Four in Chernobyl. I call on every Member of the House to join with me in remembering the victims of this tragedy and to support these efforts. Let us resolve to do our part to help Ukraine build a better future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. We've heard your last prayer, Father Dan. We wish you the best. You have served us very well. Mr. Speaker, I was on the floor last night, and I heard the debate. Clearly, there is a massive misinformation mission on the part of the Republicans. I heard repeatedly that they want to save Medicare. No. They want to end it with a voucher, costing seniors in the future at least $6,000 a year. They say they want to preserve the safety net. No. They want to shred it. According to nonpartisan analysis, their proposal calls for spending on items other than Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--but including defense--to fall from 12 percent of GDP last year to 6 percent in 2022 and just 3.5 percent of GDP in the long run. We are not going to shred defense. What their proposal means in shredding the safety net is that they have become radicals instead of conservatives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. We do not need to tear up what America has built in the past in order to build for the future. We should not confront present and future problems, including the Nation's deficit, as we must, by repealing America's past. The Republican budget tries to tear up and repeal 75 years of American experience, and the supreme example is Medicare. It tears it up. It repeals it. And contrary to what we've heard today, they would not save Medicare, but end it. They would not change it, but they would end it. Our Nation would be a different Nation without it. Millions today would be less healthy without Medicare. One of my constituents wrote to me recently to say Medicare saved her life and her life savings when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, and there are tens of thousands of people like her in this country. What the Republicans want to do is to give seniors a voucher for health care, an underfunded voucher, for 10 years. It would double health care costs for seniors, a voucher that in 20 years would pay only a third of senior health care costs. There is no place to hide for anyone who votes for the Republican budget. And what happens with the savings? Tax cuts for the wealthy. The average income of the bottom 90 percent of the families in America have fallen in the last decade. The opposite is true for the wealthy. The top 1 percent have seen their incomes climb by more than a quarter of a million dollars. In my district alone, extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans means giving 182 households that earn more than $1 million annual tax cuts averaging $103,000. At the same time, future seniors would be paying $6,000 more in health costs. If what we have built in our Nation needs to be adjusted, fix it, don't destroy it. We must address the deficit without deepening deficits in the availability for our citizens of jobs, health care, and education. The choice today could not be more decisive. A vote against the Republican budget is a vote for basic American values. Vote ``no.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the legislation before the House, which would weaken the Clean Air Act and the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect public health and the environment from carbon pollution. The scientific community has been telling us for years, with growing urgency, that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to changes in the climate and that the impact of these changes will be overwhelmingly negative going forward. There is a lot of room for a constructive debate on what the U.S. response should be to the buildup of heat- trapping gases in the atmosphere. Our response cannot be to simply deny the existence of the problem. But that is exactly what the bill before the House does. This legislation rejects the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and overturns EPA's scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers public health and the environment. In a word, this bill would take a fundamentally anti-science dogma and enshrine it into public law. It is the legislative equivalent of sticking our heads in the sand. We've heard a lot of overheated rhetoric by the proponents of this bill that protecting the American people from carbon pollution amounts to some kind of job-killing tax increase that will make gasoline and electricity cost more. In fact, the rules EPA is developing seek to curb carbon pollution by the very largest emitters in this country over a period of many years. We're talking about facilities that emit more than 75,000 tons of carbon into the air each year. In most cases, the new rules will simply require these facilities to make energy efficiency improvements. As we've seen in so many other areas, investments in energy efficiency often pay for themselves and actually create jobs. H.R. 910 is opposed by scientists, public health groups, environmentalists, sporting organizations like Trout Unlimited, as well as the UAW and the Blue/Green Alliance. This legislation should be rejected.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Sterling Heights Regional Chamber of Commerce & Industry in recognition of their 50th anniversary. Beginning in 1961 as a small, localized Chamber, the Sterling Heights Regional Chamber of Commerce & Industry has grown over the last 50 years to become a leading business organization in Macomb County with more than 1,600 members and sixth-largest in the State of Michigan. The organization started out as the ``Greater Utica Chamber of Commerce,'' becoming the ``Shelby-Utica-Sterling Chamber of Commerce'' in 1967, and in 1972 the ``Utica Area Chamber of Commerce,'' 1977 ``Northwest Macomb Chamber of Commerce,'' 1986 ``Sterling Heights Area Chamber of Commerce,'' and in 2009 the ``Sterling Heights Regional Chamber of Commerce & Industry.'' The Chamber's ``Heritage Communities'' of Sterling Heights, Utica, and Shelby Twp. are still home to almost 50 percent of the Chamber's membership, and the Chamber now has members in every Macomb County community. As a testament to the Chamber's ability to evolve and strengthen with time, in 2010 they partnered with the Anchor Bay Area Chamber of Commerce and formed a collaborative relationship that capitalizes on the strengths of both Chambers. The Chamber's mission over the last 50 years has been simple: To bring features, benefits and value to their members, and each and every day strive to bring a Return on Investment (ROI) to their members, and to make their Chamber the best business organization possible. I have witnessed firsthand the success the Chamber has with accomplishing this goal. As we have all worked together to move Macomb County forward, the Chamber has been on the forefront working with multiple partners across the community toward common goals for the betterment of the businesses, communities and residents they serve. In addition, I came to personally know longtime former Executive Director Lil Adams whom I was pleased to work with on a number of vital local transportation projects, and current President Wayne Oehmke. Each has provided the Chamber with active, dedicated leadership in the promotion of its mission. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Sterling Heights Regional Chamber of Commerce & Industry in recognition of their 50th anniversary and wishing them many more years of effective service to the Macomb County business community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California was addressing the point of order. I think he should be allowed to do so.

Mr. LEVIN. I urge the gentleman from Michigan to let him----

Mr. LEVIN. The gentleman wishes to proceed. The gentleman from California wishes to proceed.

Mr. LEVIN. And he says he is doing so. He is saying he is doing so.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes, I do.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, the rules of the House, as crafted by the majority, do make it difficult for us to craft motions to recommit that are germane. I submit this is, and I think you should listen to us before you make a ruling. You are the Speaker of the House, acting in that capacity. This motion would cut taxes, would end oil subsidies, and ensure more Americans have health insurance. It is germane. The Republicans should not try to gag us. I urge that the Speaker rule this in order.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself as much time as I shall consume. Let's be clear what the issue is today. The issue is not repeal of this provision, of 1099. We on this side not only favor repeal, but all of us who were here last session voted for it. We voted to repeal it. It failed because only two people on the minority, then minority side, voted for the bill. They didn't like the pay-for. Mr. Camp mentions the NFIB. They supported our effort last year to repeal 1099. So, again, the issue is not repeal. We have made that clear in the past, while the effort to repeal was blocked on the Republican side last session. The reason they did not vote ``yes,'' they said, was because they did not like the pay-for. The pay-for closed tax loopholes, closed tax loopholes, and they stood up and said, no, we can't vote for the bill because of that. Ironically, most of the loopholes closed in that effort have now become law. So that effort last year to block repeal essentially was to block the loophole effort that has now become the law of this land. That should be clear. The issue is not repeal. The issue is how you pay for that repeal. The Senate has now voted to repeal 1099 and apparently the now majority does not like the pay-for in the Senate bill. What does this bill provide? Well, in very simple terms, in clear terms, in unmistakable terms, the pay-for is an increase on middle- income families. It increases how much they will have to pay to the IRS if their income increases over what was projected when they would have obtained health insurance. Let me be very clear, the people were playing by the rules once the law became effective. It wasn't that they were ineligible. They were eligible, period. So no one should say they were not eligible, that somehow they misled, that somehow they misrepresented. Now, these are middle-income families who would have become eligible playing by the rules. So this is a tax increase, if this bill becomes effective, on middle- income families in future years. Mostly, it will be on families with incomes between $80,000 and $110,000. These are estimates. It can well be that a small increase in income beyond what was anticipated can lead to an increase by as much as $12,000. That's the amount that could be required in a check from the taxpayer to the IRS, and Joint Tax projects that the average increase will be about $3,000. Well, it's been said, it was said in our committee and then before the Rules Committee yesterday, that it's not a tax increase. So let me be clear by reading the language that's in the bill: If the advance payments to a taxpayer exceed the credit allowed by this section, the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year shall be increased. It is in clear simple English. So let no one stand up here and say it's not a tax increase when it is. Let me also, if I might, read from the Statement of Administration Policy that was issued yesterday. ``Specifically, H.R. 4 would result in tax increases on certain middle class families that incur unexpected tax liabilities, in many cases totaling thousands of dollars, notwithstanding that they followed the rules.'' I want to read it again. ``Specifically, H.R. 4 would result in tax increases on certain middle class families that incur unexpected tax liabilities, in many cases totaling thousands of dollars, notwithstanding that they followed the rules.'' Now, it was said yesterday at the Rules Committee that this is not a tax increase because it would become effective at a later date, 2014, when the subsidies under the health reform bill become effective. Well, if you use that logic, we could, this year, increase taxes for everybody by, say, 5 percent, and that would not be a tax increase because it would be for a later year. In a word, if this bill would become law, it would mean a tax increase for hundreds of thousands of middle income taxpayers. Also, according to Joint Tax, it would have this effect, that about 266,000 people would not be covered with health insurance because of the provisions in this bill. So, in a few words, what this bill would do would be to saddle middle income taxpayers in future years, pure and simple. What we should do is to go back and find a responsible way to pay for the repeal of 1099. And I close by the following paragraph from the Statement of Administration Policy, ``The administration looks forward to continuing to work with the Congress on the repeal of the information reporting requirements in the course of the legislative process, including finding an acceptable offset for the cost of the repeal.'' What this bill would do would be to provide an unacceptable offset, one that would burden hundreds of thousands of middle income taxpayers in our country. We should not do that, period. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield such time as he may consume to someone who has been leading the effort to repeal 1099 in a responsible way for the middle-income families of America, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. There has been a reference here to taxpayers who did not honestly report their income. I must say that's an egregious misstatement. The way this works, or will work, is people will report their income honestly, and they do so based on their taxable income of a particular year. The problem with this bill is if the income often unexpectedly goes up in a subsequent year, how much will the taxpayer be required to pay to the IRS. That's what the issue is. And as Mr. Crowley said, there are other programs where people report their income. They report it honestly, and then there is a change and the question is whether they should have to later pay some income tax to the IRS and, if so, how much. What this bill does in its present form is to recreate a ``cliff'' which we smoothed out in previous legislation, and the cliff is 400 percent of poverty. And if unexpectedly you go over that amount in a subsequent year, essentially what this provision would say is that the middle-income taxpayer would have to pay far, far more in taxes in that subsequent year. And the burden would essentially be on middle-income taxpayers. That's undeniable. It would be on income from people who are honest, who are middle-income taxpayers. So I hope no one will use the term ``ineligible'' or use the term ``dishonest.'' That's selling short the people of this country, the middle-income taxpayers. And, indeed, the effort of 1099 was to make sure that smaller businesses and others reported accurately their income. That was its purpose. Now, it is clear that the way it was devised created all kinds of problems in terms of management of the small business, and so we moved to repeal it. But it is ironic that if essentially 1099 is now used by repealing it, when the effort was to have people honestly report their income, it would essentially penalize people, middle- income taxpayers, who honestly reported their income and became eligible for a tax credit. Let me just in that respect read from Families USA: ``Unfortunately, H.R. 4 proposes paying for the repeal of the 1099 reporting requirement with a provision that would disproportionately harm middle class Americans. The Affordable Care Act protects individuals and families who run the risk of having income that may bump them up over the eligibility limits for premium credits by capping the tax penalty they will owe if the monthly premium credit received during the year exceeds the amount of credit due based on unexpected changes in income or family status. This legislation would eliminate the safe harbor for middle-income families and would increase the cap for lower- income families by $500.'' And it closes, and again I'm quoting: ``Although we recognize that Congress needs to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement so that it is no longer a distraction from the way the Affordable Care Act benefits millions of small businesses, funds intended to help America's middle class families should not be used as a piggy bank to mend this legislative problem. We urge you to find an alternative and more responsible offset for this legislation that does not increase taxes on America's hardworking middle class families.'' Undeniably, that is what this legislation would do. It is middle class families who honestly reported their income, period. There is a fraud provision in the act, which is a very stringent one, that covers the case of anybody who is dishonest; but what you're doing is penalizing middle-income families who were honest, honest, honest. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, I just want to say three quick things. It is such a misstatement for someone to come here and say ``even if they did not qualify.'' That is not correct. They qualified. So don't come here and say they didn't qualify. Essentially what you're saying is middle income taxpayers came and defrauded when the truth is they told the truth. And indeed there's a provision relating to fraud if someone were guilty of that. It allows for full repayment in cases of fraud, and there's a provision that imposes a civil penalty up to $25,000. The last thing before I yield, I want to make clear, last December, we fixed, Mr. Camp, the cliff. You voted for it. It was 409-2. I don't think you were one of the ``2.'' This resurrects the cliff, purely and simply, and catches hundreds of thousands of taxpayers in the future, middle income taxpayers. I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), an active member of our committee. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Blumenauer, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds. The gentleman who just spoke voted ``no'' on repeal last July, as did the gentleman from California who spoke before him. You both had a chance to vote ``no,'' and you failed to do so. You didn't like a pay- for that closed a tax loophole. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.